User talk:NetSpiker
Welcome Hi, welcome to Memory Beta, the wiki for licensed Star Trek content! Thanks for your edit to the "Talk:Jabilo M'Benga" page. We've noticed that you've made a contribution to our database—thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy the activities of our community after reading this brief introduction. If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Beta, here are a few links that you might want to check out: * Manual of Style: Please be sure to read this before contributing, so you know how to accurately cite your sources, and search the site to make sure the article you want to make doesn't already exist. * Policies and Guidelines: For a list of the policies and guidelines that we adhere to on Memory Beta. * '' '': For a list of pages we want most, although any contributions you make are greatly appreciated! One other suggestion: If you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in a member's talk page or the community portal. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Beta! Please leave a message on my talk page if I can help with anything! -- Sulfur (Talk) 2012-09-14T14:19:07 Accusations In a recent talk page exchange, you attempted to state that a user consensus might not be valid because one of our admin/bureaucrats had previously taken issue with your actions on another wiki or board and might be siding against you as a punitive measure. I want to re-iterate that, despite that user's participation in the discussion, I was the admin who closed the matter and also attempted to reiterate the findings of previous participants when you attempted to re-open the matter. the matter being discussed was completely and totally based on weighing the principles of the wiki with the information you presented. At no point have I ever known Sulfur to deviate from a fair and balanced assessment of situations and Sulfur's edits and discussions are calm, ordered and, with Sulfur's skill at logically following procedures of link structures, usually help to balance mine. If your argument is so flawed you have to turn to personal commentary rather than acknowledging the points put to you, you're going to have a very difficult time participating in this wiki. -- Captain MKB 03:27, August 30, 2016 (UTC) :I acknowledged all the points put to me and made a rebuttal for each one (except for those in your last post). My comment about Sulfur was not meant to attack his character, but rather to get you to accept arbitration from someone who has not been involved in the discussion. I realized it would be impossible to convince you because you were too psychologically invested in your side of the debate, so arbitration was my only chance. In retrospect, my comment about Sulfur was going too far. :Since the comment can be taken as a insult, I will edit it out of my post. I will also post a rebuttal to your last post, for anyone who might be following the debate. --NetSpiker (talk) 04:47, August 30, 2016 (UTC) Cloud creature Hi, I noticed that you un-reverted an edit to Debt of Honor regarding the di-kironium cloud creature -- at the point where the third edit is to be made, it is customary and proper to initiate a discussion regarding the situation rather than an edit war. another user has gone ahead and turned back your edit, re-adding annnd undoing your removing a link the the cloud creature. I'm not sure if you are just being somewhat obtuse or are actually ignorant of the fact that the link SHOULD be in the article - the cloud creature was explicitly mentioned in the story (in fact i checked the story just now, several pages show numerous bodies in a hallway as a result of the cloud creature's visit. The wiki operates best when users add and modify what is already rightfully in the article, rather than relying on wholesale deletion of entire links or bodies of text. If you wanted to clarify the cloud creature did not appear, it is more constructive to annotate the reference as a non-appearance (rather than being destructive and removing the link) -- Captain MKB 14:44, December 1, 2016 (UTC) Edits to TOS episode/novelization characters Hi i noticed you've been removing valid links contained in the characters reference sections of TOS episodes/novelizations - stop doing this. Also, if you are intent on creating a separate reference section to differentiate novelization characters from episode-appearing characters, please try to choose a less awkward way of forming the section title that using a parenthetical "characters (novelization)" - thats not really optimal. So in brief, choosing better section names would be preferable, and removing links is absolutely wrong and you are to stop doing so -- captainmike 69px 13:00, October 17, 2017 (UTC) :I thought the unnamed character links were redundant, since every episode of every series has unnamed characters. And unlike the unnamed character links on Memory Alpha, these ones don't link to specific unnamed characters, making them effectively useless. --NetSpiker (talk) 03:37, October 18, 2017 (UTC) ::Well, I do have a long-term plan for crafting the unnamed characters web into a more robust version, so "because Memory Alpha does it different" is not a reason to delete links I have added in good faith. They aren't redundant - and yes, every episode has unnamed characters. -- captainmike 69px 12:50, October 18, 2017 (UTC) :::When I see something like [[unnamed USS Enterprise personnel (2260s)|unnamed 2260s USS Enterprise personnel]] ([[uSS Enterprise (NCC-1701) personnel|USS Enterprise personnel]]), is it okay if I remove the second link only? I think it would make the character lists look less cluttered. --NetSpiker (talk) 08:01, October 24, 2017 (UTC) Leaving the unnamed characters aside for a moment, why would you remove links to named characters that were actually referenced in an episode from the respective episode page? Furthermore, when a character is not fully named in canon but did receive a full name in a licensed source and therefor has their MB page using their full name, it is still very much acceptible to use the canon name as a bare link (which in most cases will be a redirect to the full name anyway), or hide the direct link to the full name behind the canon name. But things like "Che'srik Tal" are just stupid. Do better, please. - Bell'Orso (talk) 08:27, October 30, 2017 (UTC) :"Che'srik Tal|Che'srik Tal" is obviously a mistake and not something that I did deliberately. I know it's acceptable to use the canon name as a bare link but I think it looks better if the character's full name is shown on the page. Plenty of characters don't have canon names at all, so they have to be listed under their non-canon names. :As for removing links to characters references in an episode, exactly what are you referring to? --NetSpiker (talk) 09:16, October 30, 2017 (UTC) :: I was referring to this: http://memory-beta.wikia.com/index.php?title=Spectre_of_the_Gun&diff=589611&oldid=564534 - Bell'Orso (talk) 12:04, October 30, 2017 (UTC) :::Billy Clanton, etc. are not characters, they're just aliases for Kirk and company. Maybe I should've moved them to Other references instead of removing them completely. --NetSpiker (talk) 01:44, October 31, 2017 (UTC) ::::They are characters. Fictional characters, even in the "Star Trek" universe, but characters nonetheless. Even if you don't count the Enterprise crew impersonating them as them actually appearing, they were still referenced in dialogue at least. Therefor they should not be moved to "Other References", but instead to the "Referenced Only" subsection of "Characters". - Bell'Orso (talk) 01:56, October 31, 2017 (UTC) I wanted to thank you for being kind to me with your sources question. I'm still very, very aware I'm new and clueless as to the proper protocols on this wiki. You could have put me on blast just because I'm green, and you didn't; that was very decent of you. I appreciate it. --Cohobbitation (talk) 13:37, September 27, 2019 (UTC) Warped parody stories His, just letting you know - the parody book which lists "fake" episodes doesn't seem to be a valid reason to create an article for each one. other parodies such as Star Trekkers have stayed bound to their central article (as meta topics that are not real narratives "in universe") and other multistory works (like the individual titled levels in Shattered Universe, for example) stay bound to their original article. There doesn't seem to be much call for this and I intend to submit them for deletion discussions and suggest they be merged to the originating article about the parody book -- captainmike 69px 01:52, January 28, 2020 (UTC) :Warped is an officially licensed parody, so I've been treating the stories the same way the stories from the Strange New Worlds anthologies are treated, with a separate article for each story. The fact that the stories have a lot of humor in them doesn't make them any less valid. I can't find any article for this "Star Trekkers", you're referring to. Do you mean Starship Trekkers? Each Starship Trekkers story has its own page: Brief Encounter at Farpoint, Party at the Edge of Forever and A Sock Time. You also mentioned Shattered Universe in support of your argument, but I can provide a counter-example: Star Trek Online has a separate article for each mission. :I think it's important to note which characters, starships, races and locations appear in which story and if you put them up for deletion, I intend to oppose. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:15, January 28, 2020 (UTC) The core of what I'm asking you to consider is that this is one book, and each story is actually "fake" - a shell of a story described for parody purposes. Each Star Trek Online mission has a much longer story which is much more on par with using the single episode page format. And yes, i made the same argument against Starship Trekkers and I'm glad to see those articles left off on their own with little attention from the rest of the wiki (as these parodies lack relevance to the actual narrative of Star Trek)... The Warped s8 references could be listed on the central page in a much more cohesive manner. By dividing them up into individual episode pages, there is a ton of redundant and pointless data being put forth in terms of repeating the same sidebar, similar lists of characters, etc., over and over again, joke references you are linking as real references and lots of empty subsections. it's pretty pointless and I'm asking for you to consider that. -- captainmike 69px 02:22, January 28, 2020 (UTC) :There is no actual difference between a "joke reference" and a real reference. It seems to me that you can't accept the Warped stories as real Star Trek just because of their humorous content. I believe that any licensed story deserves an article on Memory Beta, regardless of whether it's a drama or a comedy or whether it's long or short. I don't know what you're talking about when it comes to repeating the same sidebar and character lists. Each sidebar has a different title, a different stardate, and a different page range. Every story has a different list of characters, apart from the regulars. The only empty subsections are the summaries because I'm not good at writing summaries. --NetSpiker (talk) 02:43, January 28, 2020 (UTC) ::Once again, you're missing the point - this is one book deserving of one article. Not 2 dozen articles. Stop splitting it into a season of fake episodes. it is not 2 dozen episodes, it is one book with a series of anecdotes that are not fleshed out episodes. -- captainmike 69px 03:23, January 28, 2020 (UTC) :I disagree completely. If the other examples I provided haven't convinced you, perhaps this one will: Star Trek: Phase II: The Lost Series is another book with detailed summaries of non-existent episodes but each one of those episodes has its own article or at least a red link. :I don't know why you've also started talking about this on the article's talk page. Isn't it better to keep the discussion in one place? --NetSpiker (talk) 05:00, January 28, 2020 (UTC) ::The discussion belongs on the article talk page so other users will take part in my official merge suggestion. -- captainmike 69px 05:14, January 28, 2020 (UTC)